Kou eskrë »

> James wrote:
> >(strong)
> >I have given it       me yibave iet
> >It was given by me    et wä yeban ük ime
> >
> >(weak)
> >I have loved her      me liubave ies
> >She was loved by me   es wä liubi ük ime
> >
> >What are "yeban" and "liubi" here?

OK, so I got perfect and imperfect round the wrong way. Maybe. :-\

> James, aren't you, like, Joe Norwegian Dude? It seems to me in my
> informal study of Swedish that there are four principal parts there
> (vs. the German and English three):
> present-past-pastparticiple-supine. I don't remember which is which,
> but say for the word "älska", "love", the pp. and the supine are
> "älskat" and "älskad" (also don't quite remember the difference in
> usage).

I don't believe that that distinction exists in Norwegian - «elsket» would I
think be used in both situations. But I'm just a beginner, so maybe Tal or
our new member Rune (velkommen!) could provide native-speaker clarification.

Thanks for the suggestion though. Maybe if I can find out what the supine
actually is, or the gerundive, or any one of a number of Latin grammatical
terms, then I might find the right term. My question was really whether
"yeban" and "liubi" (as above) really were past participles, or whether
their non-use in the perfect past precludes that description. Does
"participle" imply something about that?


[log in to unmask]  James Campbell  Zeugma--Our Life Is Design
  Sponsored by -- for all your household blithery requirements